andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-1050 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Jim Savage saw this and pointed me to this video. I didn’t actually look at it, but given that it is labeled, “For new econ Ph.D.’s about to look for a job . . . what you might expect when you give your first talk presenting your research,” I can pretty much guess what it’ll look like.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Jim Savage saw this and pointed me to this video. [sent-1, score-0.428]
2 I didn’t actually look at it, but given that it is labeled, “For new econ Ph. [sent-2, score-0.998]
3 what you might expect when you give your first talk presenting your research,” I can pretty much guess what it’ll look like. [sent-7, score-1.698]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('look', 0.385), ('savage', 0.378), ('jim', 0.323), ('labeled', 0.303), ('econ', 0.296), ('presenting', 0.274), ('saw', 0.224), ('pointed', 0.204), ('expect', 0.199), ('job', 0.182), ('talk', 0.166), ('guess', 0.159), ('didn', 0.134), ('give', 0.132), ('pretty', 0.122), ('given', 0.12), ('ll', 0.113), ('actually', 0.108), ('research', 0.098), ('first', 0.096), ('new', 0.089), ('might', 0.089), ('much', 0.076), ('like', 0.054)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
Introduction: Jim Savage saw this and pointed me to this video. I didn’t actually look at it, but given that it is labeled, “For new econ Ph.D.’s about to look for a job . . . what you might expect when you give your first talk presenting your research,” I can pretty much guess what it’ll look like.
2 0.13681524 548 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-What goes around . . .
Introduction: A few weeks ago I delivered a 10-minute talk on statistical graphics that went so well, it was the best-received talk I’ve ever given. The crowd was raucous. Then some poor sap had to go on after me. He started by saying that my talk was a hard act to follow. And, indeed, the audience politely listened but did not really get involved in his presentation. Boy did I feel smug. More recently I gave a talk on Stan, at an entirely different venue. And this time the story was the exact opposite. Jim Demmel spoke first and gave a wonderful talk on optimization for linear algebra (it was an applied math conference). Then I followed, and I never really grabbed the crowd. My talk was not a disaster but it didn’t really work. This was particularly frustrating because I’m really excited about Stan and this was a group of researchers I wouldn’t usually have a chance to reach. It was the plenary session at the conference. Anyway, now I know how that guy felt from last month. My talk
3 0.13124736 1257 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Statisticians’ abbreviations are even less interesting than these!
Introduction: From AC, AI, and AIH to WAHM, WOHM, and WM. P.S. That was all pretty pointless, so I’ll throw in this viral Jim Henson link (from the same source) for free.
4 0.12410688 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
Introduction: See comments #2,3,4 here . I guess that’s why Science and Nature are known as “the tabloids.” As the commenter writes, “you can’t have people look at too many images of maggot-infested wounds.”
5 0.11357846 227 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-23-Visualization magazine
Introduction: Aleks pointed me to this .
6 0.099899843 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
7 0.092282981 741 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-02-At least he didn’t prove a false theorem
8 0.088154234 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
9 0.085555337 1039 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-02-I just flew in from the econ seminar, and boy are my arms tired
10 0.084039226 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
11 0.083375826 183 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-04-Bayesian models for simultaneous equation systems?
12 0.082979873 1261 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-12-The Naval Research Lab
13 0.082003936 1673 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-My talk last night at the visualization meetup
14 0.08186087 163 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-The fundamental attribution error: A literary example
15 0.080071062 699 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-06-Another stereotype demolished
16 0.078656636 304 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-Data visualization marathon
17 0.075951442 1689 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-23-MLB Hall of Fame Voting Trajectories
18 0.07556127 1252 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-08-Jagdish Bhagwati’s definition of feminist sincerity
19 0.075389214 1184 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-25-Facebook Profiles as Predictors of Job Performance? Maybe…but not yet.
20 0.075178541 909 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-7 steps to successful infographics
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.115), (1, -0.061), (2, -0.039), (3, 0.032), (4, 0.015), (5, -0.009), (6, 0.015), (7, 0.003), (8, -0.015), (9, -0.034), (10, 0.001), (11, 0.005), (12, 0.049), (13, -0.018), (14, -0.013), (15, -0.019), (16, 0.02), (17, -0.013), (18, -0.035), (19, 0.018), (20, -0.051), (21, -0.045), (22, 0.049), (23, -0.014), (24, -0.003), (25, -0.007), (26, -0.068), (27, -0.07), (28, 0.021), (29, -0.013), (30, 0.033), (31, 0.002), (32, 0.026), (33, -0.037), (34, 0.054), (35, 0.005), (36, 0.008), (37, 0.024), (38, 0.014), (39, -0.013), (40, -0.011), (41, 0.023), (42, 0.023), (43, 0.016), (44, 0.015), (45, -0.018), (46, 0.042), (47, 0.047), (48, 0.017), (49, 0.023)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98112994 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
Introduction: Jim Savage saw this and pointed me to this video. I didn’t actually look at it, but given that it is labeled, “For new econ Ph.D.’s about to look for a job . . . what you might expect when you give your first talk presenting your research,” I can pretty much guess what it’ll look like.
2 0.85291976 1673 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-My talk last night at the visualization meetup
Introduction: It went pretty well, especially considering it was an entirely new talk (even though, paradoxically, all the images were old), and even though I had a tough act to follow: I came on immediately after an excellent short presentation by Jed Dougherty on some cool information and visualization software that he and his colleagues are building for social workers. The only problems with my were: (a) I planned to elicit more audience involvement but didn’t do it. It would’ve been easy: at any point I could’ve just paused and had the audience members work in pairs to come up with suggested improvements to any of my graphs. But I forgot to do it. (b) I went on too long. The talk was going so well, I didn’t stop. In retrospect, it would’ve been better to stop earlier. Better for people to leave the table hungry than stuffed. Also, next time I’ll drop the bit about the nuns-in-prison movies. People weren’t getting the connection to the point I was making about presetting the sig
3 0.81278151 438 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-I just skyped in from Kentucky, and boy are my arms tired
Introduction: I just gave my first Skype presentation today, and it felt pretty strange. The technical difficulties mostly arose with the sound. There were heavy echoes and so we ended up just cutting off the sound from the audience. This made it more difficult for me because I couldn’t gauge audience reaction. It was a real challenge to give a talk without being able to hear the laughter of the audience. (I asked them to wave their hands every time they laughed, but they didn’t do so–or else they were never laughing, which would be even worse.) Next time I’ll use the telephone for at least one of the sound channels. The visuals were ok from my side–I just went thru my slides one by one, using the cursor to point to things. I prefer standing next to the screen and pointing with my hands. But doing it this way was ok, considering. The real visual problem went the other way: I couldn’t really see the audience. From the perspective of the little computer camera, everyone seemed far away
4 0.80798632 1598 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-30-A graphics talk with no visuals!
Introduction: So, I’m at MIT, twenty minutes into my talk on tradeoffs in information graphics to the computer scientists, when the power goes out. They had some dim backup lighting so we weren’t all sitting there in the dark, but the projector wasn’t working. So I took questions for the remaining 40 minutes. It went well, perhaps better than the actual talk would’ve gone, even though they didn’t get to see most of my slides .
5 0.80247247 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
Introduction: I spoke at the University of Kansas the other day. Kansas is far away so I gave the talk by video. We did it using a G+ hangout, and it worked really well, much much better than when I gave a talk via Skype . With G+, I could see and hear the audience clearly, and they could hear me just fine while seeing my slides (or my face, I went back and forth). Not as good as a live presentation but pretty good, considering. P.S. And here’s how to do it! Conflict of interest disclaimer: I was paid by Google last year to give a short course.
6 0.78583431 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
7 0.78190643 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
8 0.74175322 548 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-What goes around . . .
10 0.7182228 492 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-30-That puzzle-solving feeling
11 0.69988942 2323 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-07-Cause he thinks he’s so-phisticated
12 0.6995526 699 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-06-Another stereotype demolished
13 0.69765788 1938 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-14-Learning how to speak
14 0.69448864 1824 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-25-Fascinating graphs from facebook data
15 0.69142562 1073 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-Not quite getting the point
16 0.68909252 1039 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-02-I just flew in from the econ seminar, and boy are my arms tired
17 0.68493146 2063 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-16-My talk 19h this evening
18 0.68136489 1198 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-05-A cloud with a silver lining
19 0.66395032 2039 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-25-Harmonic convergence
20 0.66138643 239 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-28-The mathematics of democracy
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.056), (24, 0.129), (47, 0.315), (99, 0.319)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94003457 275 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Data visualization at the American Evaluation Association
Introduction: Stephanie Evergreen writes: Media, web design, and marketing have all created an environment where stakeholders – clients, program participants, funders – all expect high quality graphics and reporting that effectively conveys the valuable insights from evaluation work. Some in statistics and mathematics have used data visualization strategies to support more useful reporting of complex ideas. Global growing interest in improving communications has begun to take root in the evaluation field as well. But as anyone who has sat through a day’s worth of a conference or had to endure a dissertation-worthy evaluation report knows, evaluators still have a long way to go. To support the development of researchers and evaluators, some members of the American Evaluation Association are proposing a new TIG (Topical Interest Group) on Data Visualization and Reporting. If you are a member of AEA (or want to be) and you are interested in joining this TIG, contact Stephanie Evergreen.
2 0.91060859 1055 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Data sharing update
Introduction: Fred Oswald reports that Sian Beilock sent him sufficient amounts of raw data from her research study so allow him to answer his questions about the large effects that were observed. This sort of collegiality is central to the collective scientific enterprise. The bad news is that IRB’s are still getting in the way. Beilock was very helpful but she had to work within the constraints of her IRB, which apparently advised her not to share data—even if de-identified—without getting lots more permissions. Oswald writes: It is a little concerning that the IRB bars the sharing of de-identified data, particularly in light of the specific guidelines of the journal Science, which appears to say that when you submit a study to the journal for publication, you are allowing for the sharing of de-identified data — unless you expressly say otherwise at the point that you submit the paper for consideration. Again, I don’t blame Beilock and Ramirez—they appear to have been as helpful as
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
4 0.89397871 95 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-“Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College”
Introduction: Several years ago, I heard about a project at the Educational Testing Service to identify “strivers”: students from disadvantaged backgrounds who did unexpectedly well on the SAT (the college admissions exam formerly known as the “Scholastic Aptitude Test” but apparently now just “the SAT,” in the same way that Exxon is just “Exxon” and that Harry Truman’s middle name is just “S”), at least 200 points above a predicted score based on demographic and neighborhood information. My ETS colleague and I agreed that this was a silly idea: From a statistical point of view, if student A is expected ahead of time to do better than student B, and then they get identical test scores, then you’d expect student A (the non-”striver”) to do better than student B (the “striver”) later on. Just basic statistics: if a student does much better than expected, then probably some of that improvement is noise. The idea of identifying these “strivers” seemed misguided and not the best use of the SAT.
same-blog 5 0.88366514 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
Introduction: Jim Savage saw this and pointed me to this video. I didn’t actually look at it, but given that it is labeled, “For new econ Ph.D.’s about to look for a job . . . what you might expect when you give your first talk presenting your research,” I can pretty much guess what it’ll look like.
7 0.87969321 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
8 0.8725791 1261 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-12-The Naval Research Lab
9 0.87020898 1668 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-11-My talk at the NY data visualization meetup this Monday!
10 0.86825675 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
11 0.85414529 1897 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-13-When’s that next gamma-ray blast gonna come, already?
12 0.83550072 716 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-17-Is the internet causing half the rapes in Norway? I wanna see the scatterplot.
13 0.83251488 2068 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-G+ hangout for Bayesian Data Analysis course now! (actually, in 5 minutes)
14 0.82871866 2290 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-On deck this week
15 0.82702327 1349 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-28-Question 18 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
16 0.82218957 2124 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-05-Stan (quietly) passes 512 people on the users list
17 0.81663573 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
18 0.81623626 2131 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-12-My talk at Leuven, Sat 14 Dec
19 0.81482756 548 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-What goes around . . .
20 0.81278801 602 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-06-Assumptions vs. conditions